- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.109784 OF 2015 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.101168 OF 2016 (GM-RES) IN WRIT PETITION NO.109784 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M CIRCLE, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M RURAL SUB-DIVISION, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE SECTION OFFICER (ELE) HIREBAGEWADI O AND M SECTION, HESCOM, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY MISS. RENUKA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAYYA HUDLIMATH AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. GIRIJA W/O VIJAYAKUMAR HUDLIMATH AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. PATREWWA W/O SHANKARAYYA HUDLIMATH AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KUMARI. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O VIJAYAKUMAR HUDLIMATH AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED:31.01.2015 AND AWARD DATED:04.02.2015 MADE IN OP.NO.104/2012, PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELAGAVI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A & ETC., IN WRIT PETITION NO.101168 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKRAYYA HUDLIMATH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER AT DEVARSHIGGIHALLI, 2. SMT. GIRJA W/O VIJAYAKUMAR HUDLIMATH AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, 3. SMT. PATREWWA S/O SHANKRAYYA HUDLIMATH, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. KUMARI. VIJAYALAXMI D/O VIJAYAKUMAR HUDLIMATH, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O: HIREBAGEWADI-590058, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR MISS. RENUKA N., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O AND M CIRCLE HESCOM, NEHUR NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O AND M RURAL SUB-DIVISION HESCOM, NEHUR NAGAR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 3. THE SECTION OFFICER (ELE) HIREBAGEWADI O AND M SECTION HESCOM BELAGAVI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.01.2015 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.104/2012, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PERMANENT LOK-ADALAT, BELAGAVI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, HEREIN, IN SO FAR AS HOLDING NEGLIGENT TO THE EXTENT OF 50% ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED AND THEREBY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD, BY ENHANCING THE AWARD AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FROM RS.4,00,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST PER ANNUM TO RS.10,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION, AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B HEREIN, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COST & ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) These petitions have been filed calling in question the order dated 31.01.2015 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Belagavi at Belagavi [for short, ‘the Authority’] under the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [the LSA Act]. The Authority, by the impugned order dated 31.01.2015, has allowed the application filed by the parents, grandmother and sister of the deceased, Mast. late Vijayakumar [a minor], granting compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- [as against Rs.8,00,000/-] along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with direction that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit until the deceased’s sister attains the age of majority. 2. The petition in W.P. No.109784/2015 is by the officers of the electricity company [HESCOM] and the petition in W.P. No.101168/2016 is by the aforesaid relatives of the deceased. The undisputed facts are that the deceased’s father [the first petitioner in W.P. No.101168/2016] is the owner of the land in R.S. No.55/12 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 of Bagewadi Village and his son [the deceased Vijayakumar] has died of electrocution on 03.06.2011 at about 02:00 p.m. The deceased has breathed his last on the spot and he was aged 17 years as of the date of the accident. The Authority has found that the deceased’s father was negligent in illegally drawing electricity wire to a submersible IP set to his land and the HESCOM officers were also negligent because they, despite a vigilant cell within the organization, did not take any measure to ensure that there was no illegal tapping. 3. The relatives of the deceased and the employees of the HESCOM have filed the respective writ petitions urging multiple grounds including the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain a dispute of this nature under the LSA Act, but both Mr. Sanjay S. Katageri, the learned counsel for the deceased relatives and Ms. Renuka N., who appears for Sri G.I. Gachhinmath, the learned counsel on record for the officials of HESCOM, are categorical that the question of Authority’s jurisdiction is no longer res integra with a decision of this Court dated 03.09.2021 in W.P. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 No.101244/2016 and connected writ petitions while also stating that the question for consideration in these writ petitions will be: Whether there is reason for interference with the Authority’s finding that both the father of the deceased and the officials are equally negligent and therefore, the only amount that the HESCOM would be liable to pay to the relatives would be 50% of the compensation. 4. 4. The records, including the copies of the deposition recorded by the authority which are part of the records in W.P. No.101168/2016, are examined. Ms. Renuka. N submits that with the Authority concluding that the deceased’s father had illegally tapped and drawn electricity to IP set could not have fastened any liability on HESCOM / its officers only because such illegal tapping was not detected despite the presence of a vigilance section. The learned counsel emphasizes that the deceased’s father, who had brought upon the risk by illegally tapping electricity without safety measures, is responsible for the unfortunate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 demise, and hence, cannot stake any claim against the Supply Company or its officers. 5. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay S. Katageri submits this Court must consider [a] that it is undisputed that the deceased’s father had offered security deposit to avail electricity for the IP set, [b] that the contract to erect poles and draw wire was awarded to a third party who had not just erected poles but had also drawn line, [c] that the contractor, in executing the tender work, had serviced the connection without erecting the last pole but drawing wire over 40 meters to a wooden pole with a panel board. The learned counsel submits that the binding wire used to tie the Panel Board to the Wooden Pole [to which the electricity wire had been drawn] had peeled the skin of such electric wire charging the Panel Box and the IP set. 6. The Authority has indeed found that the deceased’s father had produced receipts to show deposit of security and these receipts are not towards consumption and that the electricity was drawn from the transformer not by a hook but by a pin as is officially done. In fact, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 Authority has observed that the second fact viz., a pin being used to draw electricity, will be in favour of the petitioners. These circumstances must necessarily be seen in the light of the admitted facts as spoken to by Ms. Najma S. Biradar, who is examined as the first witness on behalf of HESCOM. 7. Ms. Najma S. Biradar is unequivocal in her cross- examination in stating [i] that her predecessor, upon receipt of an application from the deceased’s father, had awarded contract for construction of requisite poles and drawing of a line to the subject land, [ii] that the contractor had constructed two poles, [iii] that she inspected the work 2½ months after assuming charge, [iv] that she called upon the contractor to complete the work but he had not filed any report even as on the date of the accident [03.06.2011] about the completion of the work. 8. This Court is of the considered view that these are very material circumstances. If for some reason, the contractor has not erected the last pole drawn line over a distance of 40 kms to a temporary pole to which panel box is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 tied and IP set service charged with the HESCOM officials failing to see due execution, this Court must opine that the negligence is shown entirely in the officials. Further, the immediate reason for the accident resulting in the loss of young life is the binding wire [used to secure the electricity wire and the panel board to the wooden pole] peeling the skin of the electrical wire leading to charging of the panel board and the IP set. If the HESCOM officials, who have issued the contract, had followed up to supervise the completion of tender work and the use of the pin1, they, as qualified persons, would have ensured compliances minimizing risk. Their failure has led to leaving a person, who is unlettered and unfamiliar, to accept an in-complete work leading to tragic demise. 9. The Authority’s impugned decision is arbitrary because it has ignored these material facts and circumstances and in attributing negligence even to the deceased’s father. The Authority for a just and reasonable order should have considered all the circumstances 1 As against a hook which is generally used for illegal tapping. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 especially the admitted circumstances, cumulatively to decide the question of negligence on the scale of preponderances. Hence, the question for consideration is answered in favour of the deceased’s relatives allowing their petition and dismissing the petition by the HESCOM with the following: ORDER [A] The petition in W.P. No.109784/2015 is rejected. The petition in W.P. No.101168/2016 is allowed holding that M/s. HESCOM is liable to pay the entire compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioners in W.P. No.101168/2016 will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest deposited with the Authority subject to establishing identity. [B] M/s. HESCOM shall deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 6% within three [3] months from the date of the application with the Authority to the date of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:273 WP No. 109784 of 2015 C/W WP No. 101168 of 2016 deposit and the amount so deposited shall be paid to each of the afore relatives equally. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24